Surprises and facts at AMA conference
Page 77
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE transport conference of the influential Association of Metropolitan Authorities at Birmingham last week brought local government politicians, transport planners and bus operators face to face with the hard realities of economics.
Dr John Gilbert, Minister for Transport, was unwilling to reveal the detail of the Government's Green Paper on transport—likely to be published before Easter. But he made it quite clear that the days of lush subsidies for transport services were over (see page 2).
The conference was notable for excellent contributions from distinguished visiting speakers. Mr Terry Beckett, chairman and managing director, Ford Motor Company, gave a forthright address on the future of the motor industry revealing some of the longer-term plans of Ford in the field of public transport.
Mr Beckett also surprised the conference by saying that Ford was well advanced with research on the Stirling engine, " miserly with fuel, using 25 per cent less petrol and 44 per cent less diesel than conventional engines."
Controversial
Dr M. Hillman, senior research officer, Political and Economic Planning, made a controversial presentation on transport's social costs and benefits. He insisted that transport people must not refuse to consider the awful cost of road deaths and injuries and the disruption to community life of major road schemes.
Mr A. D. May, group planner, roads and general division, Greater London Council, urged a common approach by Metropolitan traffic planners on schemes to limit car use in city centres.
Sir Daniel Pettit, chairman, National Freight Corporation, made a powerful case for a less restrictive climate for the use of lorries, even large lorries, as an indispensable adjunct to a high standard of living for everyone.
Prof T. E. H. Williams, professor of civil engineering, Southampton University, an academic with much practical experience, stressed the impor
by John Darker, AMBIM
tance of maintaining existing transport networks and urged the revival of tramway systems in some areas.
Dr Gilbert provoked the conference by revealing that in his room at the hotel nearby—the conference was held at the National Exhibition Centre— was a draft copy of the Government's new transport discussion paper shortly to be printed. To discourage any "Watergate " type robbery he said the document was guarded by a formidable lady secretary The document, said the Minister, would generate a lot of controversy and much of its content would be unwelcome to transport interests—" a consequence not of doctrine but of the public expenditure review."
Subsidies
Asked to clarify the relative significance of subsidies for buses and trains, Dr Gilbert said that the Ministry's evidence was that bus fare subsidies were less regressive than those given to support rail fares. If fares were kept down by subsidies there was less money for transport as a whole. There might be a case for discriminating subsidies to help the disabled, etc. He would like to see a national scheme of concessionary fares; there were great variations at present and some counties had no such scheme whilst others were over-generous, with free fares at peak periods.
Concessionary fares were costing the nation £45m, he said. If localities insisted on imposing improved local arrangements on top of a national scheme this would be an administrative nightmare.
Cllr K. J. Woolmer, chairman, AMA planning and transportation committee, said there was need for clear guidance from the Ministry but there would be great bitterness if there was a national approach to concessionary fares. The AMA respected the different approaches of member authorities, Metropolitant Counties were not all that well served by transport; there were large parts of Greater London and other Metropolitan county areas with grave transport problems, often with no public services at all.
Concern
There was great concern, said Cllr Woolmer, that Metropolitan areas should be free to decide the road/rail split. They were also concerned at the political split between Metropolitan Counties and PTEs. There was a gap between elected representatives in large conurbations and the regional or national implementation of programmes.
Dr Gilbert said he was aware of the problem of a national system of concessionary fares. The TPP system was proving valuable both to local authorities and the DOE in helping to form public opinion, though he noted that some authorities were not publishing their TPP locally.
ClIr Sir Stan Yapp, Leader, West Midlands County Council, speaking on "Transportation in the local economy," said he felt transport was an essential ingredient which could not be isolated from the economy.
Transport and industrial investments were complementary, argued Sir Stan, Indeed, in order to invest in industry it might be essential to invest in transport. It was necessary for central and local government to ensure that money spent on transport stimulated the economic recovery.
Sir Stan said that the West Midlands Authorities had cooperated in a strenuous campaign to persuade the Goveminent to to improve communications with East Coast ports to help exports. Such expenditure was part of an investment for future industrial prosperity.
Absurd
Metropolitan counties, said the speaker, must develop closer relationships with adjoining counties whose transport needs and problems were similar. Sir Stan felt that TPP and structure plans and processes did not adequately reflect this. He felt it was absurd to stop the operation of PTE services at county boundaries. Either the boundaries were wrong or the PTE limits of operation were wrong.
Urging that new employment areas should generally be confined to places served by public transport, Sir Stan said the long-term aim should be to reduce unnecessary travel. Possibly the Community Land Act would help to bring back vitality to inner city areas.
In a significant reference to the importance of freight transport, Sir Stan said modern freight vehicles were substantially larger than previously and it might be that the minor road improvements now undertaken would have to discriminate in favour of these larger vehicles. This was a tricky area as it was the larger vehicles that could be so damaging to the environment.
But if serious consideration was not given to favouring freight vehicles in this way we could find increasing numbers of derelict factories in inner areas. Traffic management, too, should be more weighted in favour of the commercial user. Why should the bus alone be specially favoured?
Sir Stan had some strong words to say on the subject of bus provision. "Our Passenger Transport Executive has been crying out to buy buses that British industry cannot produce. We are running uneconomical, unattractive, even geriatric, buses at a time when we are trying to attract passengers to buses. Worse than that, we are losing Bus Grant and we are certainly not getting bus grant on the extra cost of maintenance of old stock."
Mr Terry Beckett, Ford's dynamic chairman, began his review of the future of the motor industry with some confident predictions that oil would be available for the next 100 years, but there was a need for economical vehicles and there must be research into alternative power sources.
Cars and car-derived vans would be lighter, shorter, but slightly higher, with straighter sides, more glass and less front and rear overhang. They would be safer and cleaner, in terms of emissions. An intriguing aspect was the increased use of electronics in vehicle design generally, and in the solution